Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Mark F. Barnes

The election and the media

Recommended Posts

Here's something that bothers me, and this is no reflection on Obama, it's more about how he gets preferential treatment on some issues.

Do you remember the Clinton did he inhale or not ordeal? They raked Clinton over the coals about it, as well they did Bush and his drinking issues in college. Now Obama has openly admitted he was an avid weed and cocaine abuser at one time, but nothing is really made of it. It's just given a total pass. Now they have raked Cindy McCain over her prescription drug addiction, but she's not running for President. They did the same with Kerry's wife, and some of her past. Why has Obama gotten a complete pass on this deal? I've heard arguments that it's in his past and has no bearing on who he is today, and I say fine. It was in the past of every other person I mentioned also, what's the difference?

Now Obama is a very educated man, and overcame whatever his issues were drugs, and that's a good thing. He talked about it in his book quite a lot. Ans I believe that part of his life is behind him. And he has had to deal with all the other distractions in this election, (Ayers, Wright, accusations of being a Muslim, etc.), and he and his handlers have done a good job with it. But those are all very weak shots really. Now this ACORN thing is a stiff jab, and it still may not be fully delivered yet. This entire election is going to be a circus. The writing is on the wall for that. These close number projections just insure it.

I'll just glad to get past it and move on to getting the wheels back on the economy, bring on 2009.........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's something that bothers me, and this is no reflection on Obama, it's more about how he gets preferential treatment on some issues.

Do you remember the Clinton did he inhale or not ordeal? They raked Clinton over the coals about it, as well they did Bush and his drinking issues in college. Now Obama has openly admitted he was an avid weed and cocaine abuser at one time, but nothing is really made of it. It's just given a total pass. Now they have raked Cindy McCain over her prescription drug addiction, but she's not running for President. They did the same with Kerry's wife, and some of her past. Why has Obama gotten a complete pass on this deal? I've heard arguments that it's in his past and has no bearing on who he is today, and I say fine. It was in the past of every other person I mentioned also, what's the difference?

I think it's an honesty issue. Obama was honest about it, whereas Clinton probably lied. I don't think anyone really believes that Clinton did not inhale, so his goofy answer set himself up for attacks on his character. It reminds me of his comment "it depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think drug use in a politician's youth can't be a serious scandal in the forseeable future. Too many Americans have used recreational drugs for us to expect all political candidates to abstain. As long as they are honest about it, I don't see it swaying the majority.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think drug use in a politician's youth can't be a serious scandal in the forseeable future. Too many Americans have used recreational drugs for us to expect all political candidates to abstain. As long as they are honest about it, I don't see it swaying the majority.

No one is asking you to deflect it or ignore it, the point Mark brought up is that is already being done as opposed to what has happened in the past based on the examples given.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No one is asking you to deflect it or ignore it, the point Mark brought up is that is already being done as opposed to what has happened in the past based on the examples given.

It probably represents a generational shift as well. Voters today probably don't care about someone's past drug use as compared to voters in the early 90's. It's just not that taboo a subject any more.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's something that bothers me, and this is no reflection on Obama, it's more about how he gets preferential treatment on some issues.

There's little doubt the mainstream media is very biased. I think that's evident just in the fact that they have spent more time investigating Joe the Plumber than they have William Ayers or ACORN. Not a suprise since everything comes from NYC and California.

Edited by LunaticFringe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's little doubt the mainstream media is very biased. I think that's evident just in the fact that they have spent more time investigating Joe the Plumber than they have William Ayers or ACORN. Not a suprise since everything comes from NYC and California.

It seems the biggest bias in the MSM is not by party or candidate, but toward whatever will drive ratings. Joe the Plumber is the story because more people are interested in his 15 minutes of fame than a federal investigation into an alphabet-soup agency largely unknown until now. Sad but true. Personally, I'd rather see the ACORN story. And I'd take a sharp stick in the eye rather than have to endure even 10 minutes of Good Morning America, or whatver show it was that got the 'scoop' on Joe the Plumber.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's little doubt the mainstream media is very biased. I think that's evident just in the fact that they have spent more time investigating Joe the Plumber than they have William Ayers or ACORN. Not a suprise since everything comes from NYC and California.

obamamedia.gif

You can also replace the picture of Obama w/ McCain and have Fox News trailing after him.

andy_b.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's little doubt the mainstream media is very biased. I think that's evident just in the fact that they have spent more time investigating Joe the Plumber than they have William Ayers or ACORN. Not a suprise since everything comes from NYC and California.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's little doubt the mainstream media is very biased. I think that's evident just in the fact that they have spent more time investigating Joe the Plumber than they have William Ayers or ACORN. Not a suprise since everything comes from NYC and California.

Maybe Fox News and right-wing radio should focus on more important topics, like the economy, jobs, health care, ending the Iraq war, social security (the non-stock market, non-casino style type), and so many more important topics.

I find it laughable that right-wing TV and radio personalities, and those who follow them, rail against liberal bastions such as NYC and CA... but guess where they live?! NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA! Michael Savage?! - SAN FRANCISCO! Home of Nancy Pelosi and the Gay Capitol of the world! Sean Hanity - NEW YORK! They love to mouth off against the so-called "liberal elite" - but they live and work right there among them. Hey Sean, Michael... pick up your show and move to the heart land. You'd be a little more credible if you lived and worked in say... Kansas City, Kansas or nowhere Nebraska! ...but you haven't done it... because you're too comfortable living and working in a LIBERAL environment, you hypocrites.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe Fox News and right-wing radio should focus on more important topics, like the economy, jobs, health care, ending the Iraq war, social security (the non-stock market, non-casino style type), and so many more important topics.

I find it laughable that right-wing TV and radio personalities, and those who follow them, rail against liberal bastions such as NYC and CA... but guess where they live?! NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA! Michael Savage?! - SAN FRANCISCO! Home of Nancy Pelosi and the Gay Capitol of the world! Sean Hanity - NEW YORK! They love to mouth off against the so-called "liberal elite" - but they live and work right there among them. Hey Sean, Michael... pick up your show and move to the heart land. You'd be a little more credible if you lived and worked in say... Kansas City, Kansas or nowhere Nebraska! ...but you haven't done it... because you're too comfortable living and working in a LIBERAL environment, you hypocrites.

Right! You nailed it!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Maybe Fox News and right-wing radio should focus on more important topics, like the economy, jobs, health care, ending the Iraq war, social security (the non-stock market, non-casino style type), and so many more important topics.

I find it laughable that right-wing TV and radio personalities, and those who follow them, rail against liberal bastions such as NYC and CA... but guess where they live?! NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA! Michael Savage?! - SAN FRANCISCO! Home of Nancy Pelosi and the Gay Capitol of the world! Sean Hanity - NEW YORK! They love to mouth off against the so-called "liberal elite" - but they live and work right there among them. Hey Sean, Michael... pick up your show and move to the heart land. You'd be a little more credible if you lived and worked in say... Kansas City, Kansas or nowhere Nebraska! ...but you haven't done it... because you're too comfortable living and working in a LIBERAL environment, you hypocrites.

The question could also be asked why Fox News and talk radio are not considered 'mainstream media', at least by those who complain about mainstream media bias. Again, these are political tactics. I look past them to see if the actual allegation has merit. If not, I discard it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

CNN does a good job of getting both sides on their shows to discuss issues. IDK why I tune in to Fox news sometimes but at like 7ish a.m. I was watching them just bash Obama. It was like a school girl who could not keep their boyfriend and talked about the other girl cause she is angry, jelous, and in a fit of rage. My mom who voted for Bush the past two elections in which I advised her not to in 2000(have to admit I was a Bush supporter in 2004) walked in and said why are you watching this nonsense? The reason why Fox News is not mainstrem is the same reason why being from the big city means your not apart of the 'real' America. It's nonsense.

I found This on

, I thought it was really funny.

:lol::D:lol:

EDIT:Youtube insert not working just click link

Edited by Deut28Thirteen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I find it laughable that right-wing TV and radio personalities, and those who follow them, rail against liberal bastions such as NYC and CA... but guess where they live?! NEW YORK AND CALIFORNIA! Michael Savage?! - SAN FRANCISCO! Home of Nancy Pelosi and the Gay Capitol of the world! Sean Hanity - NEW YORK! They love to mouth off against the so-called "liberal elite" - but they live and work right there among them.
aren't you pretty much doing the same thing as a resident of texas?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
aren't you pretty much doing the same thing as a resident of texas?

I don't have my own talk show or mindless zombies following every word I say... It's different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most popular talk radio is (for the most part) by and for people with an extremely oppositional mindset. FOX News is the same way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I don't have my own talk show or mindless zombies following every word I say... It's different.

let's not get this thread closed too. there are definitely mindless zombies on both sides.

Edited by musicman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
let's not get this thread closed too. there are definitely mindless zombies on both sides.

I think Wayne made it pretty clear in the opening post, he's going to start restricting access instead closing threads.

This is the new presidential election thread. I closed the old one because people got out of hand.

Certain people no longer have access to the Off Topic or Way Off Topic sections, including Politics, because they can't communicate on an adult level. I will not let this thread degenerate as far as the last one did. Anyone who gets out of hand this time will find their access to this section revoked.

  • Treat your fellow HAIFers with respect.
  • Do not make personal attacks.
  • Think before you post.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Obama was referring to a report by the Wisconsin Advertising Project at the University of Wisconsin...

Those people are not credible. Not even a little.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Why not?

I'd rather not get into it here; it would drive the thread further off topic. Let's just say that they let their goals get in the way of their methodology.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I think Wayne made it pretty clear in the opening post, he's going to start restricting access instead closing threads.

I'm more than willing to use all of the tools at my disposal to keep things orderly around here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'd rather not get into it here; it would drive the thread further off topic. Let's just say that they let their goals get in the way of their methodology.

Now it's on-topic. Do you have any insider information?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here's something that bothers me, and this is no reflection on Obama, it's more about how he gets preferential treatment on some issues.

Do you remember the Clinton did he inhale or not ordeal? They raked Clinton over the coals about it, as well they did Bush and his drinking issues in college. Now Obama has openly admitted he was an avid weed and cocaine abuser at one time, but nothing is really made of it. It's just given a total pass. Now they have raked Cindy McCain over her prescription drug addiction, but she's not running for President. They did the same with Kerry's wife, and some of her past. Why has Obama gotten a complete pass on this deal? I've heard arguments that it's in his past and has no bearing on who he is today, and I say fine. It was in the past of every other person I mentioned also, what's the difference?

He doesn't need to have a pass, he just has to refer people to his book. When you've gone on record as having said you've done something, it loses its ability to be controversial.

If you want to look into preferential treatment, there has been almost no mention in the press of the fact that Sarah Palin has also admitted to using marijuana. What else has she done? And how much? There's no way to really know. I do know that UIdaho is one heckuva party school!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I heard something pretty funny today. Howard Stern had a commentator interviewing Obama voters in Harlem. He was asking if they supported Obama's views but attributed all of McCain's views in for Obama's, and the people all agreed with Obama even though the views stated were all of McCain's. For instance, he asked, do you support Obama's pro-life views and his support for keeping troops in Iraq? (which is not what Obama is for). They all basically said yes.

Here is the kicker.:

Commentator: If he (Obama) wins would you have any problem with Sarah Palin being Vice-President?

The person responded with: No I wouldn't, not at all.

Commentator: You think he made the right choice on that?

The person responded with: I definitely do.

Goes to show that some people shouldn't be able to vote in our country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I heard something pretty funny today. Howard Stern had a commentator interviewing Obama voters in Harlem. He was asking if they supported Obama's views but attributed all of McCain's views in for Obama's, and the people all agreed with Obama even though the views stated were all of McCain's. For instance, he asked, do you support Obama's pro-life views and his support for keeping troops in Iraq? (which is not what Obama is for). They all basically said yes.

Here is the kicker.:

Commentator: If he (Obama) wins would you have any problem with Sarah Palin being Vice-President?

The person responded with: No I wouldn't, not at all.

Commentator: You think he made the right choice on that?

The person responded with: I definitely do.

Goes to show that some people shouldn't be able to vote in our country

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well there was a time when blacks and women couldn't vote... would you like to return to those times? I like allowing everyone to vote... I know some people don't know who or what they are voting for but most do.

...you sure about that? Have you seen Jaywalking on Leno? :lol:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...you sure about that? Have you seen Jaywalking on Leno? :lol:

I'm never quite sure if the people in these bits are really clueless or if they're purposefully acting that way to be on radio or TV.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm never quite sure if the people in these bits are really clueless or if they're purposefully acting that way to be on radio or TV.

go work an election....you will definitely get the answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what i like to see in restaurants all around the country. I think it would be fun though unscientific. Maybe they should do it in Houston though it would probably be a clear choice for McCain. I would like to see popular restaurants rename their popular dishes called 'McCain.....' or 'Obama....' for the next week or so. Each restaurant would post their results of how many ordered the 'McCain' or 'Obama' at the end of the week. I want to see something other than polls from the media.

Edited by sifuwong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well there was a time when blacks and women couldn't vote... would you like to return to those times?

Where did you get that? A basic test of knowledge of current events and issues wouldn't exclude anyone by race or gender.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where did you get that? A basic test of knowledge of current events and issues wouldn't exclude anyone by race or gender.

Just to be fair. If Murtha had his way, people in the Western half of Pennsylvania wouldn't be able to vote, as they are apparently "Rednecks" and Obama would stand a better chance. ;)dn't work o

I would agree with you 100%, but they tried to have a litmus test back in the 50's. Somebody here posted it before. The test didn't work out to well.

Edited by TJones

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know what i like to see in restaurants all around the country. I think it would be fun though unscientific. Maybe they should do it in Houston though it would probably be a clear choice for McCain. I would like to see popular restaurants rename their popular dishes called 'McCain.....' or 'Obama....' for the next week or so. Each restaurant would post their results of how many ordered the 'McCain' or 'Obama' at the end of the week. I want to see something other than polls from the media.

I never order because of names. If there's an ingredient I don't like, I skip it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know what i like to see in restaurants all around the country. I think it would be fun though unscientific. Maybe they should do it in Houston though it would probably be a clear choice for McCain. I would like to see popular restaurants rename their popular dishes called 'McCain.....' or 'Obama....' for the next week or so. Each restaurant would post their results of how many ordered the 'McCain' or 'Obama' at the end of the week. I want to see something other than polls from the media.

Still won't work. For example some people will order a candidate to show their support, some will order to show their disapproval. You know like 'I just chewed Obama up'.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The restaurant could have an "Obama pulled pork sandwich" but the media would undoubtedly throw a "Muslim" twist on it. :huh::D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I never order because of names. If there's an ingredient I don't like, I skip it.

What if that 'McCain...' or 'Obama...' dish was one of your favorite dishes you typically order when you frequent that restaurant ?

Still won't work. For example some people will order a candidate to show their support, some will order to show their disapproval. You know like 'I just chewed Obama up'.

I guess the restaurant will have to put up something like show your approval of candidate by ordering his dish of the week.

Edited by sifuwong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's little doubt the mainstream media is very biased. I think that's evident just in the fact that they have spent more time investigating Joe the Plumber than they have William Ayers or ACORN. Not a suprise since everything comes from NYC and California.

Then how come Joe the Plumber's gender reassignment surgery hasn't been more widely reported?

josephine_the_plumber.jpg

Talk about installing pipe....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's little doubt the mainstream media is very biased.

This whole business about biased media kills me. I have politically extreme friends on both the left and right who moan endlessly about bias, although of course about bias in opposite directions. It is just so bogus. They talk like

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There's little doubt the mainstream media is very biased. I think that's evident just in the fact that they have spent more time investigating Joe the Plumber than they have William Ayers or ACORN.

I disagree. I see MSNBC as highly liberal, and Fox News to be highly conservative, and I consider both to be mainstream. CNN is closer to bi-partisanship than the other two.

Then there's ABC, NBC, and CBS evening news. They're not partisan like cable news; they're just more sugar-coated and condensed, thus more people are turning to cable anyway. And Face The Nation, This Week, and Meet The Press are pretty good at asking the tough questions to everyone that goes on their shows because their gimmick is just to try to raise hell with "gotcha" questions to whoever's in power because they want to be known as the show that made that moment possible.

Then there's talk-radio. I see that as heavily conservative than liberal. Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. get mad play there. Then when you turn to satelite radio, perhaps you may hear a liberal channel or two added to the mix.

Long-story short, there's enough liberal and conservative media out there for anyone and everyone to flip the channel like I do and hear both sides of the story. To turn my television from a partisan to a bipartisan media outlet, I simply use my remote control.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...